This is my favorite quote from Atlas Shrugged:
"I don't like people who speak or think in terms of gaining anybody's confidence. If one's actions are honest, one does not need the predated confidence of others, only their rational perception. The person who craves a moral blank check of that kind, has dishonest intentions,whether he admits it to himself or not."
Her books are filled with great quotes like this and that's one of the things that I do like about them.
Yes she does have some great quotes. I have a collection of some of my favorites.Originally Posted by cyberbob
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
The reason why Twain wasn't equally reviled was because most of his writing wasn't polemical whereas all of Rand's was. I don't think Twain. Rand or Dawkins have destroyed the idea of the basic instinct of human charity or the giving of one's time or money to causes beyond one's own selfish advantage. Dawkins stands in contradiction to his writings on this issue by his support for the anti Vietnam war movement and the Dawkins prize for, "outstanding research into ecology and behaviour of animals whose welfare and survival may be endangered by human activities."
Moreover, his much publicised atheism shows a similar lack of conviction when one considers the campaign to promote atheism among the UK population.
The campaign, started in January 2009, features adverts across the UK with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Dawkins said that "this campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think—and thinking is anathema to religion."
Note the word 'probably'.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Dawkins' use of selfishness in his description of the "Selfish-Gene" is not really analogous to selfishness in the sense that most of us use the term, or in the way Rand uses it. It's a gross misreading of Dawkins to suggest that he thinks human beings are not naturally charitable (all that we do is natural since we are natural beings). Dawkins would simply suggest that our charitability arises by the selective benefit such behaviour provides for the propagation of "charity genes", such as through kin selection or reciprocity. It is not the individual who is selfish from this perspective. Also, Dawkins would be quick to point out that these are just observations of how natural selection operates, how things like charity come about in the first place, but are not explanations of why charity continues to exist or an argument for or against charity.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Dawkins does not stand in contradiction to his own writings. And it's not so much his writings that go against "the instinct of human charity" as it is the modern understanding of biology.
The "selfish gene" is misinterpreted a lot, kind of like how Rand's "rational selfishness" is misinterpreted. Except the misunderstanding of the selfish gene is much worse because selfish genes are a scientific FACT.
Dawkins' is not against charity in any way. He's a very very liberal scientist. The selfish gene does NOT state that charity is not valid, or that every person that participates in charity has selfish ulterior motives.
The ONLY thing that Dawkins' theory says about charity is that it evolved in humans because it was a behavior that was beneficial to certain genes. If it were detrimental to an organism then it would've died off and the gene for charity would've become extinct.
Dawkins uses the word "selfish" to describe the gene itself, not human behavior. The gene is selfish because the organism only serves as a vehicle for the gene. Just because something is good for the organism does not mean it's good for the gene and vice versa.
That is why, for example, some species of spider, when they lay their eggs and they hatch, the hatchlings eat the mother alive. This kind of animal behavior couldn't possibly be beneficial to the individual spider (particularly the mother) because it leads to her death. BUT it is beneficial to the genes, because the baby spiders, which carry the genes of the mother, will be nourished when they eat her.
Contrary to some people's opinion, Dawkins is not and doesn't pretend to be a philosopher. Any statements he makes about human behavior are based on theoretical models of natural selection.
What's funny is that you call charity an "instinct". Well, instincts come from our genes and genes can only survive if they are "selfish" (in the neo-darwinian sense).
And the fact that the slogan says "probably" means absolutely nothing. Dawkins has written extensively on the difference between temporary and permanent agnosticism. Obviously we can't prove through science that there is no God (at least not at the present time) and as a scientist, Dawkins can't make the statement "I know for a fact that there is no God".
It's saying probably in the same sense that one says "there probably is no such thing as Bigfoot". In other words, it's not possible to disprove it, but practically speaking we can assume there's no such thing. I don't think that shows a lack of conviction, I think that shows a lack of dogmatic faith.
Yes, that's what I meant. Dawkins would argue that our charity is based in genetic selfishness, that we are charitable because we (or our genes) get something out of it. What Dawkins and his followers have destroyed is the notion of "pure" charity, that is charity that results in a net loss to the replicative fitness of the genes of those who confer it.
Miller,
I wasn't comparing Rand to Twain. I was merely pointing to the fact that Twain believed many of the things that Rand believed, and that he was a misanthrope to boot, and yet he never receives a fraction of the scorn that Rand received for the same ideas.
Anyway, I revert to the main point of this thread: everybody should read Atlas Shrugged because it's an important, influential book. Read it, then knock it. No shortcuts.
You seem to have misconstrued my observations in this thread. If you read what I have written previously you will see that I actually support the idea of Rand's influence and ask for some objectivity when discussing her writing rather than condemning it out of hand. I even give an example of how her influence has reached far beyond the Western hemisphere.
Denying the existence of something whilst there is no possibility of proving it sounds rather like dogmatic faith to me; that's why I'm agnostic.
With regard to Dawkins selfish gene theory, I would prefer to think along the lines of this article from Scientific American
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...man-behaviour/
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Miller,
In your quote of me, you cut out the paragraph that was addressed to you and attached the general comment at the end to your name, thus distorting my post altogether. Now that wasn't nice, was it?
I had already addressed the reason why Twain and Rand were treated differently so it was pointless reiterating it. Then you wrote : Anyway, I revert to the main point of this thread: everybody should read Atlas Shrugged because it's an important, influential book. Read it, then knock it. No shortcuts.
I replied that I was broadly in agreement with Rand's influence. If it's the question of the selfish gene theory that's bothering you, then read the extract from Scientific American.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
No, what's bothering me is that you edited my comment without leaving an ellipsis, appropriated a paragraph that was clearly not addressed to you, and then used that artificially-contrived, mutilated comment to argue that I wasn't reading carefully. My issue is with your manners, not with your views on Rand or on selfish genes.
Well, I have since read 200 pages and am sad to report that I will continue with the book no longer. I hear The Fountainhead is more apt for people looking for a book with an exciting plot rather than information on politics, perhaps I'll give that a go.
I really need to read Rand. Just wish her books weren't so damn long.
We the Living and Anthem are a couple of shorter works of hers, though I have not yet read these so I cannot personally speak for them.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
This will remain unanswered in order to prevent this thread from being closed.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
I doubt they ever closed a thread because someone issued an apology.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
